More Thoughts On Gun Control

To The Editor:

The subject of gun control is still a major topic for conversation so I decided to renew my acquaintance with the Second Amendment and draw my own conclusions. To me, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is singular in that it states a purpose, i.e., preserving the integrity of the nation by recognizing and encouraging a means of personal and national protection by the citizenry.

Because the amendment does this it is reasonable to argue that it expects the citizenry will “bear arms” for purposes of personal and national security. People who cannot protect themselves cannot be “called to arms” to protect the nation. While the Constitution cannot legally impose a requirement on the citizenry, it definitely imputes, in this amendment, that such a personal responsibility exists. So the “right to bear arms” has been specifically recognized in this second article of the Bill of Rights as a significant part of our national security endeavors.

Accepting this premise, one can conclude that any interference by anyone at any level of government or otherwise to deny the citizens this right, in any manner, must be suspect as to their loyalty and motives because our national security is at stake.

Also I think the term “gun control laws” is incorrect. The guns aren’t being controlled, it’s the people who are being controlled.